Things they obviously removed to have some expansion material

[CaptainPatch]

Games have to make money or the companies will go bankrupt, they could have worked on it twice as long and had it be much better but come out a year from now and cost $100.

Or conversely, they can produce the main game to sell for $60, then release an expansion six months later for $20, and then a second expansion another six months later which will sell for $20. Either way, the game really isn't complete (Civ 4 -->BTS and Civ 5 -->BNW) until a year later and will have cost cumulatively $100.

 

[Becephalus]

Or conversely, they can produce the main game to sell for $60, then release an expansion six months later for $20, and then a second expansion another six months later which will sell for $20. Either way, the game really isn't complete (Civ 4 -->BTS and Civ 5 -->BNW) until a year later and will have cost cumulatively $100.

Personally I would much rather they didn't do expansions and sold the games for $140 after a huge development, but consumers don't generally like that. They are REALLY stuck on the $40-60 price point.

The thing that frustrates me is all the people who clearly want a $200 game but then expect to pay $60, and then whine about it.

 

[Infiltrator]

Conspiracy theory follows.

A: Hey, what do you say we mod Civ V and package it as a new game for sale?
B: WHY would anyone buy it?
A: Just use the Alpha Centauri theme, people will buy it, trust me.
B: Okay...but I don't think they're gonna like getting just an Alpha Centauri mod of Civ V.
A: Don't you worry. Just take out features like religion and city states, or leave some of them half-finished, then release them when its time for an expansion! This way it's not the same as Civ V at launch, and by the time people realize it, they've bought in to the main game and might as well buy the expansions!

Conspiracy theory ends.

Also, make it just 8 leaders with no backgrounds, bring down music from 50ish to 15 tracks, remove unique units (cause 8 leaders, we get to knock out 2 birds with 1 stone), make wonders useless, no zoom-out map.. it'll be great!

Personally I would much rather they didn't do expansions and sold the games for $140 after a huge development, but consumers don't generally like that. They are REALLY stuck on the $40-60 price point.

The thing that frustrates me is all the people who clearly want a $200 game but then expect to pay $60, and then whine about it.

Do you consider CIV BE to be a game worth 50$ now? Because I sure don't, that's why I bought it for 25 euros off a brazillian site..

 

[Lanth]

As it stands, you can't even have any recourse to a different faction attacking a station that you like to trade with. All you can do is declare war on the attacking faction. No diplomatic solution.

Are you sure? On the diplomacy screen, there's a "Discuss" button. Clicking that lets me tell the AIs things like "stop settling cities near me" and "stop performing expeditions near me" - the same things they've told me to stop doing. They've told me to stop attacking stations, I assume that if I saw them attacking stations, I would get the same option to tell them off for it.

 

[m15a]

That's usually the same people, though, and they work together - because a lot feels like a reskin, it becomes way more obvious which parts are suddenly missing, like the demographics or diplomacy screens, things like replays, trade route sorting, all that. If it was a completely different game to Civ 5 there wouldn't be many of those complaints because it wouldn't be similar enough to be missing that.

Sorry, that's not what I meant by copying Civ V. (And as it turns out, I agree with all that.) I meant the rules systems specifically, e.g., religions, city states, etc.

 

[Eji1700]

I think of all the things I would've picked as a likely example of "they removed it to sell it later", stations wouldn't even make the list.

That strikes me a lot more as "we need this out before the Xmas rush, what can we cut corners on and deal with later" rather than "hey we finished, but lets hold it for DLC".

 

[MasterDinadan]

Honestly I like that stations are less sophisticated than city states, especially since there is no diplo victory in the game. Full city state mechanics without a diplo victory would just be extra bloat. As it is, city states are just destinations for trade and opportunity for conquest. They create opportunities and sometimes act as a small obstacle, just like city states but with much less overhead (not having to simulate all of the CS units makes for a big performance improvement)

 

[Halbbruder]

I just don't get the hatred towards civbe, or the argument that it is less complex than BNW. Here is why:


Stations: The stations are for early game development, not late game development. The exception is when you follow the industry virtue tree, getting alternative markets. Then, some stations will offer more gold to you than another faction. How is this compared to city states in civ5 (BNW)? The city states took up valuable land space and you could get a huge warmonger penalty for taking one out. They also offered quests which were pretty basic.

Victories: If civ 5 BNW is more complex than civbe, then explain why the peaceful victories are largely passive? With science, just get more science. With culture, start getting tourism straight away and hope your (MP) opponents are too stupid to notice that the feature exists. With diplomacy, save up gold and bribe city states, grab patronage and the forbidden palace. It's so basic! In civbe, you can't sit around with the peaceful victories. You actually have to plan ahead by:
- getting the right tech for affinity specific victory
- have 13 levels of the appropriate affinity you've chosen.
- prepare your resources so you can win faster after building the affinity victory project.
- Add Multiplayer: prepare your forces for an attack probably by phasal transporters. If there is a supremacy opponent, put any orbital unit covering the firaxite in your territory.

With contact, it's not strictly speaking a science victory. I won a contact victory at T215. Just find the progenitor ruins and you can effectively bypass the transcendental equation. Also, save up lots of energy just in case.

With domination victory, that victory type is a lot more feasible than in civ5. Siege combat is a bit more balanced, placing a greater burden on the defender to defend, rather than just have 2-3 ranged units and that's it. Air combat is also not as irritating.

Unit upgrades: although promotions have been simplified in civbe, the perk system gives greater opportunities, along with affinities, to diversify your units. No more sending your troops into combat heaps of times to get the best promotions or trying to get Brandenberg Gate and the level 3 barracks.


Well, there are many other factors as well like trade routes, but I'm just making it clear that civbe is by no means less complex than civ5. If people use the above reasons to justify their hatred of this game, it's probably because they don't know what they're doing or they're hardcore fans of civ 4, which has a broken combat system and is generally rather dull. They end up arguing that civbe is just a civ 5 mod, which is a false premise, but they still peddle that argument because they didn't get what they want. To all civ 4 fans in the civbe forums, do you really think civ 6 will be a remake of civ 4, a civ game that is worse than SMAC and civ 2, let alone civ 5?

The only reason I'd accept as legitimate for hating this game is the AI. Yes, they're dumb and the first 3 levels are too easy. Play on hardest difficulty. If it is still too easy, play multiplayer. If multiplayer is still rather jittery, well you got a legit reason for hating this game. If you're struggling at multiplayer but still having fun and multiplayer is stable, you can still enjoy this game with friends.

 

[Natura]

This thread makes one rather large assumption: that there will be an expansion.

That's by no means certain. SMAC did get one, true, but the game most analogous to BE is, in fact, Civ IV: Colonization. Both Col and BE are remakes of an old, spin-off game from the Civ franchise. Both have been criticized for being largely unchanged from their parent product (Civ IV in the case of Colonization, CiV in the case of BE), for a buggy release, and for a lack of replay value. In Colonization's case, the game never garnered itself a large following and fell out of the spotlight relatively quickly, especially with CiV coming out 2 years afterwards.

Colonization never received an expansion. Was that due to poor sales, or did the company not want to devote resources to a project they saw as a quick money-grab whilst working on the next installment to the Civ series? Only time will tell for BE, but I think it's highly presumptuous to assume that an expansion is coming.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

There is nothing nefarious about Firaxis removing features from the previous game, it's part of the Civ lifecycle. They pare the game down to its core of empire building simulator, then revamp the mechanics they took out. For example, alot of people complained about civ5 lacking religion because civ4 had it. Then they added religion as a core part of G+K, and it was completely different from religion in civ4.

 

[Mozzington]

so, given that they directly deny your silly statement with facts, it seems quite deniable.

Coming across quite unprofessional for a person of your standing in these parts. Rise above it.

 

[Eji1700]

This thread makes one rather large assumption: that there will be an expansion.

That's by no means certain. SMAC did get one, true, but the game most analogous to BE is, in fact, Civ IV: Colonization. Both Col and BE are remakes of an old, spin-off game from the Civ franchise. Both have been criticized for being largely unchanged from their parent product (Civ IV in the case of Colonization, CiV in the case of BE), for a buggy release, and for a lack of replay value. In Colonization's case, the game never garnered itself a large following and fell out of the spotlight relatively quickly, especially with CiV coming out 2 years afterwards.

Colonization never received an expansion. Was that due to poor sales, or did the company not want to devote resources to a project they saw as a quick money-grab whilst working on the next installment to the Civ series? Only time will tell for BE, but I think it's highly presumptuous to assume that an expansion is coming.

There will be DLC. Unless this game was a complete failure on launch(which despite reviews i'm guessing it still sold well enough, especially with more casual crowds who just dip their toes in civ games). Marketing strategies these days basically just assume you will, period. This in fact may be the game they put out simply because it wouldn't be too resource intensive to develop, and then they could put out a few more DLC's to fund Civ 6 development. It would actually quite shocking if there was NOT some sort of further monetization of the product, simply because it's been a fairly rewarding business model for them so far, and has been shown to be effective in the industry at large.

 

[Thormodr]

This is a dumb idea and show a real lack of understanding how computer game development works. Now Take Two might have intentionally kept the budget and development time with a plan that there would be expansions to flush it out. But that is not the same thing.

Games have to make money or the companies will go bankrupt, they could have worked on it twice as long and had it be much better but come out a year from now and cost $100.

Flush it out? I know some people have an issue with the quality of the game and all but that sounds a bit drastic. Lol.

Perhaps you meant "flesh it out".

 

[Question]

If you look at the global defines file you can see they included tons of penalties for "unhealth" but they dont work ingame for some reason.

 

[CaptainPatch]

This thread makes one rather large assumption: that there will be an expansion.

That's by no means certain.

From the game manual:

PATCHES, UPDATES, DLC
Steam will check for updates and automatically patch your game if one is
found – no more searching the Internet for the latest update information. You
can also purchase official DLC from within Steam. Make sure to check back
often for the latest information on newly available maps, mods, scenarios and
other new offerings.

I doubt very much that they would mention "official DLC" unless they already had some in the works. And if they have DLC, they most likely are at least contemplating at least one expansion. (Of course if the initial release bombed -- which I don't believe it did -- and/or there was a consumer revolt, etc., then most likely "Why throw good money after bad?" would kick in.)

 

[m15a]

There is already the pre-order DLC. Of course, that's also a sign that they're open to more DLC.

 

[AgentDib]

I agree that the lack of features is more likely due to a lack of development time rather than intentionally holding completed work back for later sale as DLC. I also don't think the price is that big of a deal for a game like this that will involve hundreds of hours of content if it is done well. The price per hour of a great Civ franchise game is negligible regardless of what the box/expansion/dlc prices are.

My problem with the logic that CivBE should not be compared with CiV is that they are both on the marketplace as competing options for your time. How much time the development studio put into them may explain differences in quality, but is not important beyond how enjoyable each product currently is. It reminds me of the people who say you cannot compare new MMO games to WoW because of how much content WoW has; if people find that the new game is less fun than WoW then they will just go back to that.

 

[kirbdog]

Either they scrapped an "Era of Prosperity" (Golden Age) system, or they plan to bring it online later. From GlobalDefines.xml ...

<!-- Other Stuff -->
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_BASE_THRESHOLD_HEALTH">
<Value>500</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_THRESHOLD_CITY_MULTIPLIER">
<Value>0.01</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_EACH_GA_ADDITIONAL_HEALTH">
<Value>250</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_VISIBLE_THRESHOLD_DIVISOR">
<Value>5</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="BASE_ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_UNITS">
<Value>1</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_UNITS_MULTIPLIER">
<Value>1</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_LENGTH">
<Value>10</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_GREAT_PEOPLE_MODIFIER">
<Value>100</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="MIN_UNIT_ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_TURNS">
<Value>3</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="ERA_OF_PROSPERITY_CULTURE_MODIFIER">
<Value>25</Value>
</Row>

 

[albie_123]

and yet the devs themselves said that religion was removed because it didn't fit the theme.

no one ever said that a World Congress 'equivalent' was ever going to be in BE.

so, given that they directly deny your silly statement with facts, it seems quite deniable.

edit -

at most you can say is that someone was sloppy and didn't remove code.

I'm not saying and never claimed that there was some grand conspiracy wherein features were removed to be placed back in later. What I said was: 'What I assume occurred is that as release day grew closer, several features were then put on hiatus'. There's a big difference. And if that ISN'T the case, and in fact Beyond Earth is exactly the game the developers intended to release, then all I can say is, wow. There's a big difference between not trimming legacy code or not bothering to change AI structure compared to not making edits that would take literal minutes to complete like diplo responses.

And keep in mind I was referring to features they changed the code for, not hypothetical features that could be added later on. Golden ages were changed to ages of prosperity but never implemented. Terraforming is half-implemented but blocked out in the code. And then there's religion, which the devs say was removed due to not 'fitting with the game', but hey, if the rest of the code is anything to go by that's probably a half-truth at best.

I love this game, enough to try and fix its flaws, but there is simply no way in hell you can deny features were cut short to make release. The proof is in the XML pudding.

 

[SiegePenis]

It definitely has a lot of cool innovative features (the tech tree, the affinity system and a lot of others).
Even the way settling new colonies works is cool.

The tech web is neither innovative, nor is it a good idea.

It's obvious somebody played endless space and decided to rip it and put it into BE so it's a "new and innovative" feature for the new game and they can say "see it's not a civ 5 reskin". However, they obviously ed it up. They divorced the military unit strength system from the techweb and paired it instead with affinity. This is mostly a stupid thing because you can beeline the affinity tech and thus, rush the affinity unit. So we end up with the broken tier 4 affinity unit.

and settling new colonies is essentially the same system as master of magic. there really is no reason for it except to be different. honestly they probably did it to nerf the ability to plop down a "forward base" with your settler. but this is a side effect of the also questionable choice to give city combat strength, which is a side effect of the 1UPT system.

so it all traced back to the 1UPT you see.